Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:44:55 -0500
From:      "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com>
To:        Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp'
Message-ID:  <20060731184454.GA84483@megan.kiwi-computer.com>
In-Reply-To: <44CE40EA.5080009@centtech.com>
References:  <200607271150.k6RBoM9p031745@lurza.secnetix.de> <44C8FB65.9020102@FreeBSD.org> <44CE03D2.2050803@centtech.com> <17614.4005.407223.621637@bhuda.mired.org> <44CE199C.2020500@centtech.com> <17614.8289.134373.387558@bhuda.mired.org> <96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a@mail.gmail.com> <20060731172858.GA84042@megan.kiwi-computer.com> <44CE40EA.5080009@centtech.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:42:02PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> On 07/31/06 12:28, Rick C. Petty wrote:
> >
> >In both cases, why don't you just use:
> >
> >/usr/compat/linux/bin/cp
> 
> Two reasons - it's not in the base system, so a port has to be installed 
> - and linux_base is FC3 now, so if you want to talk about bloat... 

And the "-l" option is needed in single-user mode?  I like not having extra
bloat around when I don't even have /usr mounted and am trying to fix a
disk or misconfiguration.  I'm just arguing the usefulness of having it in
the base system vs. using linux_base.  The argument that our cp should be
equivalent to gcp seems silly to me.

"-l" may be a useful option, but at what point is the line drawn between
bloating our base cp and having a gcp port (or using linux_base)??

"-a" certainly is useless.  An alias is far more useful-- even for things
in /bin !  I certainly cp and mv mapped to "cp -i" and "mv -i"..  one could
also argue that the our base versions of these use this option by default.
Personally, I prefer to do a post-install patch to add these aliases to
/etc/csh.cshrc (actually on my systems: /etc/csh.aliases) and /etc/profile,
etc.

> Another reason is gcp fails to recursively copy a directory that has 
> symlinks in it.

That sounds like a bug or at least an oversight.

-- Rick C. Petty



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060731184454.GA84483>